05-20-2011, 08:09 PM
Tony,
The Garand was only one weapon in the mix of Thompsons, BAR's, M1 Carbines, and Browning M1919 machineguns...supported by tanks often. Also, the US forces in the European theater entered WWII pretty late in the game, and only faced about 1/3rd of the Wehrmacht, and those forces were often the newly-recruited, recovering injured, youths, and generally ones who weren't fit to be on the Russian front-where the most intense Eurasian infantry battles were fought. Those fronts also were priority for fielding of the Stg44, elite German units, and the main strategic focus of Germany.
Furthermore, they weren't fighting opponents with AKM's and PKM's, so while WWII introduced the paradigm shift of the Assault Rifle, its lessons were largely lost in the US ordnance circles responsible for small arms development, which was painfully evident with the adoption of the single-caliber system with the M14/M60 and the 7.62x51 cartridge. England had a much more viable cartridge at the time in many respected military professionals' opinion, and that was of course the .280 Enfield. The US dominance in systems standardization in NATO basically screwed England, Belgium, Germany, Denmark, Norway, and other countries into adopting the 7.62 NATO as a standard service rifle cartridge, which then became the chambering for the FAL/G1, CETME & later G3, and the other ancillary "Battle Rifles" under the West's influence, which was a shame really, and that's coming from a Yank.
The only redeeming thing for service rifles to come along was the AR15 in 5.56x45, which the US of course switched to quite rapidly after the blatant inadequacy of the M14 in maneuver warfare. Also keep in mind that much of the rice-filled plains in Vietnam provide excellent fields of fire at ranges that would challenge even long range calibers, so it isn't a 100% saturated triple-canopy environment as many would like to brush with one stroke. The AR15 had already become a favorite of the British SAS in Malaysia before major US troop involvement in Vietnam, and continues to be a mainstay as the go-to platform for a small, shoulder-fired weapon for utility across most operational mission profiles in that unit.
I can't tell you enough what a heaven-send it was when we received M4 carbines in conventional and recon units in the US Army. I had been a big proponent of equipping key leaders, RTO's, AG's, FO's, medics, and Scouts with the M4 carbine as I had seen it fielded with 18th Abn Corps LRSC, but knew it would never happen because it made too much sense. Imagine my surprise when I saw our Company Commander walking with one in hand telling my Scout Platoon Leader and First Sergeant about it, and then seeing our entire arms room filled with them! That was one of the best days of mine in the Army, and I was even more surprised when all the M16A2's were replaced with the M4 in Light Infantry, Airmobile, and Airborne units.
Even in the dominant open terrain environments in a high desert mountainous region, small unit tactics in the US system involve a lot of different duty positions that I briefly mentioned-all of which would be ill-suited with a larger caliber rifle with a bigger weight and length profile. The M4 is about perfect for them, since my Medics, Forward Observers, Assistant Machine-Gunners, Ammo-Bearers, Radio Operators, and most Key Leaders will not be even attempting to make hits on individual targets past 50m, let alone 100-300m. We haven't even addressed the Mortar Platoon, Scout Platoon, Company & BN HQ, etc. What rifle would they end up with in a single-caliber system?
Now think about a Leader's recon, which is always conducted before deliberate attacks, ambushes, and raids (which are the 3 types of planned missions or combat patrols dismounted units engage in). During a recon, your job is to move into an area, gather the battlefield info you need, and get back to your unit while remaining undetected the entire time of course. This requires as low a profile as possible, and the M4 fully-supports that role. If chance contact is made, the unit breaks contact using fire & maneuver to get out of the effective range of the enemy as quickly as possible, which usually involves a lot of ammunition being expelled to make the enemy think they have hit a larger force. The most helpful thing in that scenario would be a mix of M4's and a comparable-weight LMG with a short profile that could pump out a lot of firepower, like the Peruvians have with the Ultimax LMG.
Does this shed a little more light on why a single-caliber system doesn't make sense? Remember that there are a lot of guys who compliment the dismounted fighting force with weapons that bring more firepower to bear than anything hand-held, that being the RTO's, TAC-P's, and FO's linked to indirect fire & CAS assets. They are organic and attached personnel (TAC-P's & FO's) as a rule. There isn't this collection of "riflemen versus the world" arrangement, at least in the US system.
I'm not intimately familiar with the British TOE in dismounted units, but I do know enough guys there to be aware that there are a lot of similarities between NATO countries, and there are Mortar sections, machine-gunners, radio operators, forward observers, key leaders, and such. A single-caliber system would do those duty positions a great disservice as well, not to mention all the soft-skill drivers, cooks, mechanics, etc.
If the L85 had been built right from the start, the UK would be in a much better position, and is better-equipped to employ the L85A2 as a suitable PDW for those duty positions today, but it's still illuminating to see SAS & SBS use a heavy mix of Diemaco M4A1-type carbines with UK-made Mag58's as a GPMG for the primary small arms, now augmented with the L129A1.
LRRPF52
The Garand was only one weapon in the mix of Thompsons, BAR's, M1 Carbines, and Browning M1919 machineguns...supported by tanks often. Also, the US forces in the European theater entered WWII pretty late in the game, and only faced about 1/3rd of the Wehrmacht, and those forces were often the newly-recruited, recovering injured, youths, and generally ones who weren't fit to be on the Russian front-where the most intense Eurasian infantry battles were fought. Those fronts also were priority for fielding of the Stg44, elite German units, and the main strategic focus of Germany.
Furthermore, they weren't fighting opponents with AKM's and PKM's, so while WWII introduced the paradigm shift of the Assault Rifle, its lessons were largely lost in the US ordnance circles responsible for small arms development, which was painfully evident with the adoption of the single-caliber system with the M14/M60 and the 7.62x51 cartridge. England had a much more viable cartridge at the time in many respected military professionals' opinion, and that was of course the .280 Enfield. The US dominance in systems standardization in NATO basically screwed England, Belgium, Germany, Denmark, Norway, and other countries into adopting the 7.62 NATO as a standard service rifle cartridge, which then became the chambering for the FAL/G1, CETME & later G3, and the other ancillary "Battle Rifles" under the West's influence, which was a shame really, and that's coming from a Yank.
The only redeeming thing for service rifles to come along was the AR15 in 5.56x45, which the US of course switched to quite rapidly after the blatant inadequacy of the M14 in maneuver warfare. Also keep in mind that much of the rice-filled plains in Vietnam provide excellent fields of fire at ranges that would challenge even long range calibers, so it isn't a 100% saturated triple-canopy environment as many would like to brush with one stroke. The AR15 had already become a favorite of the British SAS in Malaysia before major US troop involvement in Vietnam, and continues to be a mainstay as the go-to platform for a small, shoulder-fired weapon for utility across most operational mission profiles in that unit.
I can't tell you enough what a heaven-send it was when we received M4 carbines in conventional and recon units in the US Army. I had been a big proponent of equipping key leaders, RTO's, AG's, FO's, medics, and Scouts with the M4 carbine as I had seen it fielded with 18th Abn Corps LRSC, but knew it would never happen because it made too much sense. Imagine my surprise when I saw our Company Commander walking with one in hand telling my Scout Platoon Leader and First Sergeant about it, and then seeing our entire arms room filled with them! That was one of the best days of mine in the Army, and I was even more surprised when all the M16A2's were replaced with the M4 in Light Infantry, Airmobile, and Airborne units.
Even in the dominant open terrain environments in a high desert mountainous region, small unit tactics in the US system involve a lot of different duty positions that I briefly mentioned-all of which would be ill-suited with a larger caliber rifle with a bigger weight and length profile. The M4 is about perfect for them, since my Medics, Forward Observers, Assistant Machine-Gunners, Ammo-Bearers, Radio Operators, and most Key Leaders will not be even attempting to make hits on individual targets past 50m, let alone 100-300m. We haven't even addressed the Mortar Platoon, Scout Platoon, Company & BN HQ, etc. What rifle would they end up with in a single-caliber system?
Now think about a Leader's recon, which is always conducted before deliberate attacks, ambushes, and raids (which are the 3 types of planned missions or combat patrols dismounted units engage in). During a recon, your job is to move into an area, gather the battlefield info you need, and get back to your unit while remaining undetected the entire time of course. This requires as low a profile as possible, and the M4 fully-supports that role. If chance contact is made, the unit breaks contact using fire & maneuver to get out of the effective range of the enemy as quickly as possible, which usually involves a lot of ammunition being expelled to make the enemy think they have hit a larger force. The most helpful thing in that scenario would be a mix of M4's and a comparable-weight LMG with a short profile that could pump out a lot of firepower, like the Peruvians have with the Ultimax LMG.
Does this shed a little more light on why a single-caliber system doesn't make sense? Remember that there are a lot of guys who compliment the dismounted fighting force with weapons that bring more firepower to bear than anything hand-held, that being the RTO's, TAC-P's, and FO's linked to indirect fire & CAS assets. They are organic and attached personnel (TAC-P's & FO's) as a rule. There isn't this collection of "riflemen versus the world" arrangement, at least in the US system.
I'm not intimately familiar with the British TOE in dismounted units, but I do know enough guys there to be aware that there are a lot of similarities between NATO countries, and there are Mortar sections, machine-gunners, radio operators, forward observers, key leaders, and such. A single-caliber system would do those duty positions a great disservice as well, not to mention all the soft-skill drivers, cooks, mechanics, etc.
If the L85 had been built right from the start, the UK would be in a much better position, and is better-equipped to employ the L85A2 as a suitable PDW for those duty positions today, but it's still illuminating to see SAS & SBS use a heavy mix of Diemaco M4A1-type carbines with UK-made Mag58's as a GPMG for the primary small arms, now augmented with the L129A1.
LRRPF52